such is the candidature of the popes


[..]the successful candidate is drawn from the church and even the convent- from the mode of education and life that are most adverse to reason, humanity and freedom. In the trammels of servile faith he has learned to believe because it’s absurd, to revere all that is contemptible, and to despise whatever might deserve the esteem of a rational being; to punish error as a crime, to reward mortification and celibacy as the first of virtues, to place the saints of the calender above the heroes of Rome and sages of Athens and to consider the missal, or the crucifix as more useful instruments than the plough or loom.

Edward Gibbon, the Decline and fall of the Roman Empire, pg 632

Advertisements

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

51 thoughts on “such is the candidature of the popes

  1. Right…, seems exactly what’s needed to make his f***ing holiness and the most f***ingly holy vatican the most desirable observing partner for the UN, EU… The Mafia offers protection in exchange for money. The Church offers prayer in exchange for alms. All roads lead to Rome…

    Like

  2. I like that quote.

    Like

  3. Whoa Liberty : )))

    Like

  4. Aquileana says:

    Interesting and a little bit tough, right?…
    Well, I guess that is what critical thinking tends to do with the statu quo…
    Destroy it (in a subtle way)…

    Best wihes Makagutu, Aquileana 😉

    Like

  5. Arkenaten says:

    Just caught this comment of yours on unkle’s blog , Noel. He is gong to have a field day with this, Ehrman is not a mythicist. I know this was a mistake so be prepared for some classic unklee sarcasm.

    I would delete this comment as soon as you’ve read it in case he comes Trolling.

    2. Jesus was known in his day as a itinerant teacher and miracle-worker, regardless of whether the scholars personally believe his teaching or not, and whether they think he really performed miracles or not.

    This is a claim made by mythicists such as Bert Erhman and not historicists.

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      It’s alright. The time is passed for that. Thanks for the heads up.

      Like

      • Arkenaten says:

        I should caution you, arguing Josephus with him is a waste of energy. Trust me. You are, sadly on a hiding to nothing with this.
        He will tell you that Carrier is not a proper scholar does not have a teaching position and generally try to rubbish his credentials.
        I agree with Carrier’s take – and there are others – but the likes of unklee and his sidekick Ignotantianescia will immediately direct you to the Wiki article, which if you read you will see not a single scholar listed that disputes the whole passage. Although it does say there are scholars who consider the whole of this passage in Josephus fake, it doesn’t list who these scholars are.
        There is a mention that it was all regarded as interpolation in the 19th century but this was before supposed literary criticism.
        John has argued this with him as well and he will simply haul out his ”consensus of scholars”, Vermes, Meir, Baukman etc.

        He is the type of Christian who will close down an argument as soon as he feels he is losing or has lost ground.
        Watch what he does with Paarsurry in the next round of comments.
        If you are a betting man I suspect this is what will happen…
        He has already posed the question about whether Paarsurry rejects scholarly opinion re: Jesus.
        If Paarsurry avoids directly answering or states that he considers these scholars not valid, unklee will then move to state there is nothing further to discuss.He will likely be quite polite, but that will be it.
        He has done this with every commentator that drives him to the brink where he is forced to give a Yes or No answer,

        This is classic Apologetic 101.
        They are disingenuous in the way they present their arguments as they have NO INTENTION of considering evidence that will seriously challenge their faith. They cannot allow it.
        Read this, Mak, http://www.provingthenegative.com/2011/02/defeasibility-test.html.
        I found it today. It explains why they think the way they do

        Like

We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s